Of Interest

I know this community of readers often dislikes to see soapboxing; follow me below the fold for a piece about our new President and a particular reaction I keep getting around campus.

Since the announcement of our new President, a lot of what I’ve heard about the President has to do with the categories he fits into: for example, he’s young and a Div 3 type of teacher, something this blog pointed out has been very rare at Williams. However, I’ve also heard a lot of reactions to the “diversity,” or lack thereof, of this pick. I’ve heard from more than one student about how unfortunate it is that Williams went with another white male, instead of breaking a barrier, and from others how glad they were that Williams didn’t let a desire for diversity keep them from picking the best candidate.

Such responses don’t surprise me, but the amount of focus on these traits was unexpected. I have a few responses:

First, while I don’t know the non-students on the search committee especially well, neither Alan Arias ’10 nor Lizzy Brickley ’10 were white males, and I completely trust their judgment and ability on this matter. They are both stand-up individuals who were very patient as I was trying to deconfirm Falk yesterday after the false (and slightly damaging) Hill leak.

Second, I’m bothered by the idea that there was a “best candidate.” “Quality” is, first of all, a non-quantifiable judgment call. True, there are definitive ways of looking at possible indicators of quality, like counting citations or awards, but ultimately it comes down to a gut decision between candidates that pass a certain bar of pre-requisites. We can’t foresee the problems and events that will shape President Falk’s time at Williams, and it’s entirely possible that one of the other 60 people interviewed for the job would have been better for whatever’s coming down the temporal road. However, we have to choose someone without the benefit of that knowledge, and President-elect Falk seems to be entirely capable of handling anything unforeseen. Remember the quote from the new site: The Search Committee Prospectus was said to describe him to a T.

Third, I’m bothered by the idea that a choice for someone who is “diverse” reflects choosing a President of lower quality. That’s nonsense. There is some rational basis, though, to the idea that the candidates for the position were probably overwhelmingly white and male, because policies aimed at correcting such imbalances have yet to take long-term & full effect. Within that context, I’m not surprised that Williams chose a white male, but it’s not something to celebrate or berate.

A caveat: I entirely agree that circumstances at Williams (and likely within higher Ed generally) have not been as easy for those coming from different backgrounds; my time on a panel during an alumni weekend last year made that clear as day. However, fixing the causes of those imbalances is different than treating the symptom of over-representation in school leadership. I would have been bothered if the Search Committee had chosen someone they felt was less capable than another candidate on the basis of checking a different diversity box, and I would have been hugely bothered by the suggestion that a non-white male picked would have lacked ability. I am a white male, and truth be told, that affects my perspective, but let’s talk about Falk and the things he has chosen in his life, not the traits he was born with. He is a beneficiary of privilege, but I’d like to think that didn’t factor into this choice.

I imagine it takes something special in an academic to get tenure in 3 years and a full professorship three years after that; I’m glad Williams now gets to benefit from whatever qualities those were. Enjoy the webcast; I’ll be there live.

hwc–yes it is. tenure in 3 years @ a school like jhu in the sciences is pretty damn special. going from associate to full 3 years after tenure isn’t particularly uniquely impressive, but going from a first year hire on the tenure track –> full professor in 6 years (the normal time to get tenure as an associate) is “something special”.

Rory- There are plenty of women and minorities at Williams who are as qualified as this man at this point. When it gets to splitting hairs, it comes down to who the people doing the hiring think is the “best fit” “right now”. In this case, someone “from another place” had the best characteristics at this period of time according to “whoever hired him.”

Personally, I think the College should have hired an insider. Others come in with their own vision… but does it fit the school and the town? Morty was a disaster who had no concept of an education founded in the concept of learning on a log underneath the purple mountains. I hope this man is different… but does he really understand the Berkshires? How many times, will he climb Stone hill?

PTC, Morty was the consumate insider, who clearly loved Williamstown considering he spent the better part of three (I believe) decades in the town. Just because someone chooses not to be buried in Williamstown doesn’t mean they don’t love the town. I love the town and live in D.C. You love the town and live (I am not sure, actually, but I know not locally any more).

I thought next-president Falk’s maiden speech was a well-written statement of understanding the Williams vision while pointing ahead to areas in which the experience may expand.

These will be very interesting years. And you need have no worries about a being on a ‘soapbox’.

If there is an advantage of a slightly higher vantage point, then you are not writing to rant from that height to those of us on the ground. You are sharing a personal perspective that may help us gain a better feel for the terrain we have to travel.

Jeff- Well, I think a lot of the development that took place under Morty was a disaster. I am willing to give this person a chance… but I still think it would have been better to hire an insider who had already lived in Williamstown for decades and cut their teeth on the place… had kids that went to the schools… etc.

It is about perspective for me. I could care less honestly if the college hired a minority or another white man… I think these kinds of choices should largely be made from within.

While it may be true that I left town for a job… I plan on trying to die in the area (if I am so lucky)… still have much of my family and friends living there… which I think is an important perspective.

PTC, here is the point I was trying to make: Morty WAS an insider, yet he was partially responsible for the development you dislike (and we certainly disagree to a large extent on that perspective, although we have some areas of accord, as previously discussed to death). So there is no guarantee that an insider will uphold the values you like more than an outsider. I think almost any college president nowadays likes to build big buildings. Hard to think of any of Williams’ peers where there was NOT an explosion of square footage in recent years. I don’t see any correlation between insider / outsider status and that sort of growth.

In any event, I wouldn’t really sweat it as between (a) the financial situation (b) Williams’ commitment to building the library and (c) the lack of any substantial captial improvment needs left on campus (other than improving athletic facilities a bit), there isn’t going to be any massive growth of the campus in the next decade (other than, again, the new library which is a done deal) in all events.

1) I love soapboxing! Also, I think almost all our readers like soapboxing when it comes from current students because they are so curious about what current students think. So, please soapbox more.

2) In that spirit, please do a new post on your reactions to the afternoon events, and the reactions of other students. Readers loves that sort of stuff.

3) “I’m bothered by the idea that there was a “best candidate.” Are you bothered by the idea that someone might be the “best quarterback” or “best doctor?” Now, obviously, college presidents and quarterbacks and doctors are hard to judge. The “best” depends on the circumstances. But we can still have a sensible discussion about how some presidents/quarterbacks/doctors are better than others in some/many/most/all circumstances. Judgment is possible. You and I and Rory and Greg Avis would probably rank the 60 interviewed candidates in different order, but I bet that there would be a very high correlation (25%? 50%? 80%?) among the ranks.

4) Alan Arias ‘10 is not a white male? Just how do you know what boxes he checked on the Common Application?

5) “my time on a panel during an alumni weekend last year made that clear as day.” This would make for an interesting post.

6) Don’t drink too deeply from the PC fountain.

There is some rational basis, though, to the idea that the candidates for the position were probably overwhelmingly white and male, because policies aimed at correcting such imbalances have yet to take long-term & full effect.

You really think that, even after 5, 10, 50, 100 more years of the world’s most wonderful “policies” that the applicant pool will be, say, 50/50 male/female. I will take the other side of that bet. On average, more women than men will always take time off for family, whether because the patriarchy makes them or because of their own free will. Given that, the pool of academic with resumes like Falk’s will always skew male.

You really think that, even after 5, 10, 50, 100 more years of the world’s most wonderful “policies” that the applicant pool will have Ashkenazi represented proportional to their share of the population. I will take the other side of that bet. It is not by accident that individuals of Ashkenazi descent are so dramatically overrepresented among elite college presidents.

7) “He is a beneficiary of privilege, but I’d like to think that didn’t factor into this choice.” As if any elite college president, including women like Faust, Chopp, Simmons, Rodin, Gutmann, Tilghman et al is not just as much a “beneficiary of privilege.”

i just can’t believe that david (well, i can. it’s just sad), within an hour of the speech ending, is speculating as to the background of a student…especially when the third link in a google search makes it abundantly clear that he’s quite proud of his ethnic background. I’ll bet that will might know him personally too! it is a small campus. lol.

Jeff Z: If you have a coherent argument to make, please make it. We are all ears! In the meantime, Gattaca is, indeed, an excellent movie. Alas, watching it does not make the point you think it makes. Nature matters and nurture matters. It is the people berating Will (and William’s choice of Falk) who would deny the first half of this empirical reality.

Fortunately, by occupying space on one extreme in this debate, I help provide cover to Will (and Falk).

Care to lay odds on the next time we will see two white starting cornerbacks in the NFL? Maybe we need “policies aimed at correcting such imbalances” . . .

You really think that, even after 5, 10, 50, 100 more years of the world’s most wonderful “policies” that the applicant pool will be, say, 50/50 male/female. I will take the other side of that bet. On average, more women than men will always take time off for family, whether because the patriarchy makes them or because of their own free will.

The question is not a 50/50 pool. The question is whether an elite college can hire a female President if that is established as a priority. Harvard, Princeton, Brown, and UPENN (twice) clearly demonstrate that it is, indeed, possible to find qualified — and in several cases, exceptional — candidates in the pool.

The pool of applicants at elite colleges is not 50/50 either, but those colleges that make it a priority to do so manage to enroll sufficient males to have a balanced freshman class.

The point I believe that Gattaca makes is that if we place too much stock in genetic destiny, we imperil and undervalue the power of the human spirit. Like, for example, coaches and parents who, from an early age, allow subtle biases to guide them in assigning positions and/or sports to athletes in part based on race, leading to a self-fulfilling prophesy that the best athletes of a particular race will (unsurprisingly) end up disproportionately represented in particular sports and/or positions by virtue of their early exposure to the skills required for the position they are arbitrarily assigned. But now we are getting way, way, way, way off point on a day that should be about celebrating Williams’ new leadership rather than rehashing irrelevant debates about race and gender.

@David: I simply don’t have time to do everything that you want me to do. Moreover, one would hope that I can describe Alan as someone who personally knows him. Correlation is different than an linear scale. And finally (on this post) you invented a strawman. I didn’t say it would be 50-50; thanks for putting words in my mouth, and I find your rationale that it won’t to be irrelevant and inflammatory

I’ve also heard a lot of reactions to the “diversity,” or lack thereof, of this pick. I’ve heard from more than one student about how unfortunate it is that Williams went with another white male, instead of breaking a barrier

There is probably a spectrum of beliefs about the importance that Williams should have placed on the race/gender of the new president.

At one extreme, there are those (perhaps hwc is one) who felt that Williams should have selected a non-white and/or non-male, assuming that there were strong candidates with these attributes in the pool. Since there almost certainly were such strong candidates, the fact that Williams selected a white male tells us something (unfortunate) about the College.

[Will: If this is not a fair summary of some of the reactions you are getting around campus, please correct it.]

At the other extreme, there are those (like me) who felt that there is no particular reason for Williams to select a non-white or non-male. We want the best candidate, box-checking be damned. (Needless to say, my best candidate happened to be female, but her gender was largely irrelevant for me.) It does not matter to us/me if Williams goes another 100 years with only white male presidents just as it does not matter to me if the New England Patriots go 100 years without a white cornerback.

Now, most Williams people are somewhere in the middle. They would not demand a non-white and/or non-male, but such attributes would be a “plus” and/or “might tip the scale.” (And we all agree that the best candidate, ignoring race/gender, might very well not be a white male. Just like the best draft pick at cornerback for the Patriots next year might be white.)

Will, I assume, is somewhere in this middle ground and is, therefore, somewhat critical of the reactions of those who complain about the lack of diversity in Falk. And I agree with Will!

If we place the debate on some sort of left/right axis, then Will is criticizing people to his left. I agree with those criticisms. But because Will is to me left (I think), I also criticize him. However, there is no doubt in my mind that we agree with each other much more than either of us agree with the folks who complain about Falk for diversity related reasons.

The current president of Pomona is a chemist (at Chicago before Pomona); the president of Wellesley is a biologist (on the faculty of Yale before becoming pres of Wellesley).

I don’t know how rare it is for scientists to become college or university presidents, but I certainly don’t think it is an oddity. Another example (albeit a university) is the president of Princeton, who is a biologist.

I don’t know about physicists (especially theoretical ones) — perhaps they have a singular aversion to college/university administration.

You’ve summed up my position perfectly, except that I would not characterize it as “extreme”.

My questions for Williams as an institution would be:

a) If not now, when?

b) If 216 years of white male presidents, without interruption, is not long enough, when will it be long enough?

c) It’s been 38 years since the first class of women enrolled at Williams. How long before they see that a woman could be President of Williams?

There is no question about Falk’s credentials as a physics researcher. His appointment to the faculty of the Physics Department would have been unquestioned, regardless of gender. His experience as an administrator could be fairly described as limited in terms of longevity. Certainly adequate, but I don’t think anyone here could make the case that he has exceptional administrative credentials.

For example, he has not been president of a college. He has not had the top academic job (Provost) at a major university. He has not led a capital campaign. He has no connection to Williams or any other liberal arts college, never having set foot on one in a student, professor, or administrative position. And, as near as we can tell, doesn’t bring a notable “vision” in the sense of a Tony Marx with his socio-economic spiel or Jim Yong Kim with his humanitarian rock star image.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure he’s a swell guy and will be a fine President of Williams. I did not, however, see anything in today’s presentation that explains why they just had to have this guy. Maybe the pool wasn’t that strong? Maybe the women turned ’em down? Maybe the school is just not ready and female candidates were never seriously considered? I don’t know. I do know that the selection of yet another white male says something about my alma mater, which will matter to some people and not to others.

The return of fraternities will never occur, but from time to time I like to use the subject of the ban at Williams to remind about the stupidity, arrogance and illiberal instincts of authority in general, irrespective of its sort, time or place.

I’ll go post-gender after Williams has broken the string of what will now be 225 uninterrupted years of white dude Presidents. As prominent member of the search committee, Jonathan Kraft likes to say, “It is what it is.”

That’s why I’m surprised they didn’t. It would have been met with overwhelming support. Plus, once Williams has its first female President, then the issue is off the table. Nobody can wonder if the search committee even considered women candidates.

As far as “non-discriminatory”, I make no bones about my support for affirmative action in college admissions and hiring. I’m all for it.

Back on topic. I take it there is some disapproval of Williams’ strong commitment to affirmative action as being potentially discriminating? Does people feel that way about admissions as well as hiring?

I don’t give a hoot about the gender of the Williams president (undoubtedly due to my utter lack of appropriate post-graduate academic qualifications to discuss gender, race, or anything else, as some of our more educated readers have often told me), but I am very interested in finding out the reason why the Presidential Search Committee did not select Cappy Hill, who would have seemed earlier to be pretty much the perfect candidate. Though I hope that Falk will be an outstanding President, I remain puzzled by the choice.

This whole discussion seems based on the assumption that filling the position had only to do with the choice of the search committee. Interestingly, it does not seem to take into account that the Williams presidency might not have been the easiest job to fill, that in fact, some may have turned it down.

I would be shocked if Williams didn’t have an outstanding pool of applicants. Depending how you tally the list, it’s in the top-ten per student endowment schools in the United States. Applicants for college presidencies fully understand the implications of that, particularly after a major recession has rocked higher education. I pay fairly close attention to the topic. I have found very few colleges or universities that are as solid financially as Williams coming out of this year of collapsing endowments.

The pay is competitive and substantial. I cannot imagine anyone interested in an LAC presidency turning down Williams. These jobs, at places like Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, and Grinnell just don’t open up very often.

Haverford’s new President is a highly-regarded stem cell researcher with 100 patents. Combined PhD and MD from Yale. Interned and Residency at Mass General. He was a researcher at Dana Farber/Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Eight years on the faculty at UMichigan Medical School (appears that he was tenured after four). Hired away by UPENN Medical School as a full professor, he directed UPENN stem cell center with $50 million a year in research projects. He spent 10 years there and took the Presidency of his alma mater in 2007.

Harvey Mudd’s new president (as of 2006) is a computer scientist. Before taking the Mudd Presidency, she was Dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University in New Jersey. She’s one of ten members of the board of directors of Microsoft Corporation

People make decisons all the time that aren’t predicated on “competitive and substantial pay”.

Yes, of course. I know of a candidate who turned down the Harvard Presidency. On the other hand, I listed several reasons why the Williams job is one of the top academic positions in the country. I am confident the applicant pool was broad, deep, impressive, and eager.

Claremont-McKenna’s President Pamela Gann graduated from Duke Law School after majoring in math at UNC-Chapel Hill. She practiced law with King and Spaulding in Atlanta before joining the faculty of the Duke Law School. She was Dean of the Duke Law School when she accepted the Presidency of Claremont-McKenna 10 years ago. I don’t know if anyone has been as successful as she has. She’s raised over $400 million of a $600 million campaign and Claremont McKenna is now tied with its neighbor Pomona with the lowest acceptance rate of any LAC in the country.

Yes, of course. I know of a candidate who turned down the Harvard Presidency. On the other hand, I listed several reasons why the Williams job is one of the top academic positions in the country. I am confident the applicant pool was broad, deep, impressive, and eager.

Who’s saying it’s not a top academic position? Or that the applicant pool wasn’t broad and deep? Why give that as a response to my comment that there may have been candidates who turned the job down?

I don’t think anyone got past the initial rounds and turned down the job. There probably were potential candidates the search firm contacted who didn’t throw their hat in the ring for various reasons (timing, spouse considerations, etc.) If somebody made it to the short list of a dozen and withdrew with reservations about the job, then the College needs to look at how that could happen. I don’t believe that it did.

Yes, but perhaps surprising in some circles (Larry Summers?) that they have a woman scientist at the helm. Dean of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton and on the board of Microsoft would seem to be decent qualifications coming into Mudd’s Presidency. In other words, I don’t think they had to “lower their standards” to hire a woman.

a small quibble. I hope I’m not the person who made you think some demand “post graduate academics” to discuss race or gender. If I am, I’m truly sorry. To speak authoritatively on the subject as a subject as opposed to one’s personal experience or opinion (like David often writes), however, does require some level of specialization in the subject. Think of it like philosophy, for example–I could talk about my personal views and the one class i took, but i’m not going to speak authoritatively on it (“this is how it is” instead of “this is how I see it”). Even us with post-grad academics and specialization should speak more about “how I see it” (unless we have actual data) than “how it is”…but the graduate academy trains you to speak authoritatively as much as possible (an interesting point…I need to think about that).

I look forward to hearing in more depth from our new president once he’s had a chance to learn more about Williams.

Rory- ? If it is an opinion of an expert then that is known by the credentials and often depends on if others value of those credentials. For example… is GWB an expert on foreign affairs? He was president for 8 years… so, yes he is. Do others recognize that? Depends.

There is nothing wrong with arguing facts even though you may not be recognized as an expert. Such points, are by default, normally an opinion.

For example- My opinions on the fallacy of the Afghanistan Vietnam comparisons. As long as my logic is sound, who cares if I am an expert. I can pretty much shoot down most of the comparisons for being vague and poorly reasoned. Common sense often rules the day against expert opinion.

I agree with Frank way back @ 32 that now is the time to welcome Pres. Falk & his family.

But, think about the appointment from a woman’s perspective. I would guess that even with highly qualified candidates, Williams is a very special place, not for everyone. (Plus, for someone that qualified [like the woman at Vassar] wouldn’t she prefer to move up, as Morty did.)

If she were single, divorced, widowed, unattached, regardless of sexual orientation, would Williams & Williamstown call out to her?

As I recall, when Dick wrote about the director of WCMA, she was not expecting romance, according to the nuptials announcement. And, even if she fell in love with Williams, would you want a president who became married to the place?

Now, if she were married, how many of you (& I’m thinking about the number of male posters & commenters) would no questions asked move to Williams, give up whatever commitments you have. And, if that were the case, how many non-Eph men would do the same?

To which, kudos to Adam Falk’s wife & children for supporting the move.

Now, if she were married, how many of you (& I’m thinking about the number of male posters & commenters) would no questions asked move to Williams, give up whatever commitments you have. And, if that were the case, how many non-Eph men would do the same?

I know it’s not much, but the job paid over $600,000 last year including benefits and an $80,000 expense account. Plus, free tuition for children at the college of their choice. Plus, free use of what would be a $1+ million house in any decent neighborhood. I know it would be a financial sacrifice, but I would do it for my wife!

Maybe Williams will have to acquire additional office space next to the Investment Office and move the President’s office to Boston!

Williams’ location is pointed to as an obstacle to diversity recruitment in the many reports generated by the College. Another potential obstacle would be if the College were ever to be perceived to be talking the talk, but not walking the walk in its actual hiring decisions.

To which, kudos to Adam Falk’s wife & children for supporting the move.

Do you have a link for this? I am eager to believe that Falk’s family supports the move. But if I tried to move my daughters (13 and 10) away from all their friends, they would be extremely upset . . .

Now, if she were married, how many of you (& I’m thinking about the number of male posters & commenters) would no questions asked move to Williams, give up whatever commitments you have. And, if that were the case, how many non-Eph men would do the same?

Could you rephrase this question a little more clearly? If my wife wanted to move to nice city X (including Williams), I would be perfectly game. My Eph brother has followed his senior executive wife to at least 4 cities over the course of her career.

But my wife has told me that there is no way that she would move just because I got a cool new job in New York City and London. And that is OK!

At the same time, it is simply a fact that a much higher percentage of male than female Williams graduates, at least after the 10th reunion, are involved in the sorts of high speed careers in which city moves are common or necessary. So, most moves are male-related. That tells is little about whether or not men are more or less ready to move than women are.

I’d like to second the fact that frank’s #32 said it all, 17 hours ago:

“frank uible says:

Blahbedy-blahbedy-blah. Does everyone feel better. Now let’s move forward with young Doc Falk.

September 29th, 2009 at 8:31 pm”

And for those still wondering why Dr. Falk was hired, here’s what Greg Avis had to say two days ago (since it was apparently missed / overlooked):

“The Board was captivated by Adam’s intelligence, passion, warmth, and outstanding record of leadership. …

“Adam’s values align remarkably with those of Williams. He is deeply and broadly curious and instinctively collegial. He sets the highest standards, yet is very down to earth. Adam appreciates Williams and what makes it exceptional. He is eager to advance our commitments in such areas as diversity and inclusion, sustainability, and international education. He knows the importance of alumni engagement. Those who work with him say he is a great listener and community-builder, in touch with the many people required to operate a campus. …”

It’s clear that his wit, charm, and charisma (along with his megawatt smile and important other intangibles, such as embodying a good “fit” as well as expressing a positive outlook) appealed to the Search Committee — and will aid, no doubt, in appealing to sensible alums (and parents) to monetarily support their (and their children’s) alma mater.

But of course this may be so simple an explanation as to be beyond the comprehension of those who are looking for some other “justification.”